On 11/3/2011 4:53 PM, Carlo wrote:
It's a great talk and I found him to be an engaging speaker.
Out of interest, what parts don't you agree with and would it affect how we
move Pharo forward?
Cheers
Carlo
On 03 Nov 2011, at 10:21 PM, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
It is a very interesting video. I don't necessarily agree with everything he
says. But I believe he makes some valuable distinctions between simple and easy.
I didn't necessarily watch the video critically. But here goes.
He is very pro a reasonably, but not purely functional approach.
Data in data structures and functions which operate on them.
I have not reached a place where I view the world statelessly. I have
only dabbled with functional programming and do not fully understand how
to do it purely or well. Thus far any attempts I have made to do things
in a fairly pure functional manner with data structures and functions. I
haven't truly succeeded. I end up going to a pretty simple object
approach. The object is my data structure with its methods, my functions.
I won't argue the sometimes object oriented gets very, seemingly
unnecessarily complex. Which is why I keep an on more functional
approaches. I think Smalltalk is better than others. But we still have a
mess. I think Pharo is going the right direction on this. Untangling the
mess. Which by definition in the video would be simplifying our artifact.
I fully agree on wanting things to be Simple vs. Easy.
I would like to see our Easy things become Simple, our complex things
become Simple(r).
I don't claim to know the best answer to the questions or claims by the
functional proponents. But I do know that they are not all wrong, nor do
I assume that are all right.
My point of view at this 'state' of my life. :)
Jimmie
